Management Thread III (MOD Warning Post # 67)

[Hoghandler]

That's because you're either ignoring or dishonestly mischaracterizing our argument. You seem to think we want Benning gone just because the team's been bad and not why.

No, that's not what I think. I'm aware of the why, and there are countless legitimate gripes on the why.

It's wanting to also write off the down cycle as a product of Benning where people lose me. As if it wasn't completely obvious that these dark days were coming, as we saw the previous core age out, with very little push in terms of U-25 talent; and a barren prospect pool.

Yes, they should have entered a tear down re-build the day Benning was hired. But guess what ownership had to say to the guy that brought that to the table as the best path forward?

 

[Bleach Clean]

I didn't want Benning to get the contract extension, but that's not really relevant to the point I'm making.

You can acknowledge the team was headed for a woeful few seasons after Gillis was fired, while also acknowledging Benning did a poor job since being hired.

You can, but then you cannot take better team performance as an indicator of GM impact either.

This is the implication of saying the GM would have had zero impact on the team’s cycle, regardless of who that GM would have been. That it was going to go this way anyways. Right?

Next, when a team is bad for a long time, it inevitably accrues talent at the top of the draft. Inevitably, it gets better. Because cycles, right?

Last, Benning has done a poor job since being hired = He should be fired, correct?